Overall impression: The reviews for HarbourWood Care Center are highly polarized, producing a mixed but cautionary picture. A substantial number of reviewers express deep satisfaction—particularly with individual staff members, the admissions team (most notably Terri/Terri Bolander), and the rehabilitation/therapy services—while an equally substantial cohort report serious safety, care-quality, communication, and management concerns. The contrast between glowing accounts and severe complaints suggests inconsistent performance across shifts, units, or time periods and a reliance on specific staff to provide acceptable care.
Care quality and clinical safety: A recurrent and serious theme is inconsistent clinical care and safety failures. Multiple reviewers report neglectful incidents such as long waits for bathing and toileting, residents left in soiled diapers, failure to assist during choking, and three documented wheelchair falls. There are also multiple allegations of clinical incompetence or inadequate training—examples include CNAs unfamiliar with feeding-tube management, temporary aides not knowing patient orders, interrupted or incomplete med passes, and use of home or cheaper medications in place of prescribed treatments. Several reviewers allege inappropriate use or changes to psychotropic medications (including benzodiazepines during acute illness), withheld oxygen or breathing treatments, and heavy sedation that family members characterized as “drugging.” These accounts constitute high-risk clinical failings that families should consider serious red flags.
Staff, management, and workplace culture: Staffing instability is a dominant negative theme. Reviewers frequently cite high turnover, reliance on temporary/agency staff, CNAs who are inattentive or unfamiliar with residents, and supervisors who appear to ignore problems. Alongside this, reviewers identify pockets of excellence: several nurses and therapists (Riza, Sara, Cameron) and especially Terri in admissions are repeatedly singled out for compassionate, responsive care. However, other reviewers describe unprofessionalism—fighting among staff in front of families, threats to call protective services or police, coercive behavior allegedly by a named staff member (Christine Gillis), and falsified documents. There are also reports of management indifference or defensive responses when concerns are raised, and at least one mention of a state agency investigation. The pattern suggests an uneven culture where outcomes can vary dramatically depending on personnel and leadership responsiveness.
Communication and family engagement: Communication problems appear frequently. Complaints include failure to notify families about hospital transfers, COVID infections, or changes in condition; lack of patient history or paperwork when patients arrive; unreturned voicemails from the office; and poor handoffs during staff changes. Conversely, many families praise specific staff who take concerns to management and keep families informed. Because of this variability, several reviewers recommend daily family monitoring or advocacy to ensure safe care.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Reviews are mixed on the physical environment. Many describe clean, bright rooms, a pleasant courtyard, and a well-kept facility, while others report serious sanitation issues (urine smells in halls, ants and ant bites, food delivered in to-go containers, cluttered hallways with residents left in wheelchairs). Infrastructure concerns (loud industrial HVAC noise, an older building needing TLC) are also noted by multiple reviewers. These divergent experiences again point to inconsistent housekeeping and environmental maintenance practices.
Dining and activities: Dining receives polarized feedback. Several reviewers rave about the dietary program—attractive meals, excellent puree consistency, and appealing menus—whereas others describe the food as “disgusting,” wrong diet orders being served (soft diet not followed), and limited or unappetizing meal options for some residents. Activity offerings such as bingo and live music are mentioned positively by some families, supporting that programming exists but may not meet every resident’s needs uniformly.
Security, personal property, and privacy: Numerous reviewers allege lost or stolen belongings, missing dentures, and even financial exploitation or coercion. There are also reports of privacy breaches (photos taken while a resident slept, meetings discussed with unrelated family members), and accusations of staff attempting to isolate residents from family. These allegations—ranging from negligent loss of property to alleged manipulation and financial misconduct—are serious and should prompt documented complaints and possible regulatory reporting if substantiated.
Patterns and likely root causes: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. Positive reports cluster around particular people, teams, or timeframes, while negative reports include systemic errors (staffing shortages, poor training, disorganized documentation, and communication breakdowns). The presence of both high-quality rehabilitative care and serious neglectful incidents suggests variable staffing levels, reliance on temporary workers, and inconsistent supervisory oversight as core contributors.
Recommendations for families and prospective residents: Prospective families should perform focused due diligence—ask about staffing ratios, turnover rates, frequency of agency staff, emergency procedures, and how the facility communicates critical events. Visit multiple shifts and speak directly with nursing leadership and therapists. For current families, document concerns in writing, request care plan meetings, escalate unresolved issues to state licensing/ombudsman offices, and maintain copies of medical orders and possessions inventories. If immediate safety issues or abuse are suspected, contact local adult protective services and the state survey agency.
Conclusion: HarbourWood Care Center elicits strongly divergent experiences. There are clear strengths—compassionate and skilled individuals (particularly in admissions and therapy), some clean and well-managed spaces, and successful rehab outcomes for many. However, the frequency and severity of the negative reports—neglect, safety incidents, medication and oxygen management concerns, privacy violations, theft, and poor communication—are substantial and cannot be ignored. The facility appears capable of excellent care in some cases but also shows significant, recurring operational weaknesses that families should carefully evaluate and monitor if considering placement.
